What is a conflict of interest?
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal interests – family, friendships, financial, or social factors – could compromise his or her judgment, decisions, or actions in the workplace.
Conflict of interest in Indian sports
In the hearings conducted in the aftermath of the 2013 IPL Betting Scandal, in which N. Srinivasan, his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, & others were involved, Former Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur stated that “bias in a conflict of interest situation happens in a subtle way”.[1] This allusion was an ode to the reality of Indian sports, where conflict of interest of key stakeholders has at several times impeded the fair & equitable functioning of sports bodies.
In the Indian context, while high-profile cases such as the 2013 IPL Betting Scandal remain highlighted[2], people involved in the sports industry are privy to conflict of interest situations at various levels-National, State, & District level.[3] Recently, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) Vice-President Rajeev Shukla was embroiled in ‘conflict of interest’ charges, which are still under investigation.[4] While most such cases seem to be primarily associated with sports like cricket and football, conflict of interest situations are faced by virtually every sport.[5] This has led to various legal interventions.[6] This article shall be elaborating upon conflict of interest in sports law in the Indian context, whilst analyzing the steps taken to abate the malaise, and the way forward.
Domains-Conflict of Interest
Conflict of Interest can encompass various domains including conflict of interest in finances, revenue, broadcasting, share-holding, grant of tenders, contractual obligations, etc., the enmeshing of interests of stakeholders is so rampant that various aspects fall under the ambit of the functioning of the same organization. In the Indian context, Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been no stranger to controversy, with allegations being levelled against the body, such as allegations of monopolization of the market, appointments, broadcasting, and even sporting malpractices involving conflict of interest such as doping & match-fixing.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was involved in a long-pronged case, wherein 3 cricketers, Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila, & Ankeet Chavan were arrested on charges of alleged spot-fixing. Separate charges were levied against other stakeholders for betting. The R.M. Lodha Committee (2015), constituted in the aftermath of the same, suspended the owners of franchise teams Chennai Super Kings (CSK) & Rajasthan Royals for a period of two years.[7] Furthermore, the issue of conflict of interest also protracts to mechanisms addressed at countering the same. The Mukul Mudgal Committee (2013) submitted its report on the allegations of spot-fixing & betting in the Indian Premier League (2013)[8]. However, the composition of the committee was also under the lens. Thus, it can be inferred that the existence of conflict of interest permeates the domain of sports, & even authorities fall prey to such issues. However, the judiciary has played its role in tackling the issue.
Judicial Interpretation
The judiciary has taken a proactive stand in tackling issues pertaining to conflict of interest in sports law. In the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) v. Cricket Association of Bihar[9], BCCI decided to launch Indian Premier League (IPL) & appointed Mr. N. Srinivasan, as Secretary of BCCI. After allegations against owners of CSK & Rajasthan Royals surfaced, BCCI constituted a committee headed by Mr. Sanjay Jagdale and two retired judges of Madras High Court. A PIL was filed by the Cricket Association of Bihar before the Maharashtra High Court seeking the previous constitution of the committee to be declared ultra-vires of the Constitution and sought the appointment of retired Supreme Court judges in the panel. This is one of the foremost cases involving a conflict of interest issue, amongst the other issues taken up before the court.
In the case of Surinder Singh Barmi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, the petitioner & the Competition Commission of India alleged that Board of Control for Cricket in India engaged in anti-competitive practices, and also charged it with abusing its dominant position in the market of private cricket leagues in India, based on BCCI’s contract with Indian Premier League (IPL) that restricted organizing or recognizing any other professional in competition. This conduct of the BCCI was found to be in contravention of S4(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, and it was held that the BCCI shall not place any restriction on conducting events by other parties.
In the case of Pan India Infraprojects Private Limited v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2013)[10], Pan India Infraprojects Private Limited filed a case against BCCI, alleging the violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. With a similar factual milieu to the case of Surinder Singh Barmi v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, denial of market access to organisation of domestic private professional cricket leagues/events was one of the issues under consideration. The Commission determined that there was a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position by BCCI within the meaning of Section 4(2)(c). However, such cases continue to be adjudged by the Indian Courts, with several principles being adjudicated regarding conflict of interest.
Conclusion
While the issues of conflict of interest continue to plague the domain of sports in India, it is clear that various interventions have taken place in order to address the issues arising due to conflict of interest issues. There is an urgent need for a transparent system of appointment, allocation & sanction with respect to the functioning of major bodies & intermediaries. Only the shall such issues be obliterated.
[1] Conflict of Interest More Widespread, Deep-Rooted than Fixing in Indian Sports, 6th June 2021, msn.com, available at https://www.msn.com/en-in/sports/cricket/conflict-of-interest-more-widespread-deep-rooted-than-fixing-in-indian-sports/ar-AAKLeff
[2] Timeline of IPL 2013 betting & spot fixing case, 23rd January 2015, indiatvnews.com, available at https://www.indiatvnews.com/sports/cricket/timeline-of-ipl-2013-betting-and-spot-fixing-case-15205.html
[3] Conflict of Interest More Widespread, Deep-Rooted than Fixing in Indian Sports, 6th June 2021, news18.com, available at https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/conflict-of-interest-more-widespread-deep-rooted-than-fixing-in-indian-sports-3816677.html
[4] Conflict-of-Interest Allegations Levelled Against BCCI Vice-President Rajeev Shukla, January 14, 2021, news18.com, available at https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/conflict-of-interest-more-widespread-deep-rooted-than-fixing-in-indian-sports-3816677.html
[5] Supra Note 3
[6] Ibid
[7] Lodha Panel Report: Top 10 Recommendations, 28th September 2016, indianexpress.com, available at https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/lodha-panel-report-top-10-recommendations/
[8] Mudgal Committee on IPL Spot Fixing Submitted Final Report to Supreme Court, 4th November 2014, jagranjosh.com, available at https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/mudgal-committee-on-ipl-spot-fixing-submitted-final-report-to-supreme-court-1415085035-1
[9] Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 1 MLJ 711
[10] Pan India Infraprojects Private Limited v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2013) CCI Case No. 91 of 2013
YLCC would like to thank Tamanna Gupta for her valuable input in this article.
